Adam Raoof wrote:I agree that we should just have it - but I would prefer that it had some incentive for the players. A small donation of Â£10 per event (or say Â£10 per day of the event - so Â£10 for a one day tournament, Â£20 for a weekender etc) would cover it. Right now most tournaments don't even know they are in the Prix, and that can't be right. If we asked them for a donation and to put the ECF logo on their forms, it would be a good start.

Like so much else at present, this all ties in with the ECF funding debate.

For 2011-12, asking Congresses to pay this in addition to the increased levels of Game Fee may not be too well received.

Come 2012-13, if Game Fee is no more, the idea may be rather more viable.

I'm inclined to think there should be a cap of say Â£40. If, for example, the Big Slick event were to incorporate an Open Swiss in a future year, asking it to pay Â£90 seems disproportionate to me. I assume you wouldn't wish to discourage one round a day tournaments if there is a market for them.

Adam Raoof wrote:I agree that we should just have it - but I would prefer that it had some incentive for the players. A small donation of Â£10 per event (or say Â£10 per day of the event - so Â£10 for a one day tournament, Â£20 for a weekender etc) would cover it. Right now most tournaments don't even know they are in the Prix, and that can't be right. If we asked them for a donation and to put the ECF logo on their forms, it would be a good start.

Like so much else at present, this all ties in with the ECF funding debate.

David Sedgwick wrote:For 2011-12, asking Congresses to pay this in addition to the increased levels of Game Fee may not be too well received.

Well, I don't know. If I gave Â£10 for each Golders Green Rapidplay, or a weekender donates Â£20, it only needs one player who would not have otherwise considered playing to more than pay that back. I think we would all agree that there are a lot of titled players out there who are simply not playing as much as they used to, or playing 4NCL and no weekenders - maybe this would encourage them?

David Sedgwick wrote:Come 2012-13, if Game Fee is no more, the idea may be rather more viable.

That might be true, let's see what happens!

David Sedgwick wrote:I'm inclined to think there should be a cap of say Â£40. If, for example, the Big Slick event were to incorporate an Open Swiss in a future year, asking it to pay Â£90 seems disproportionate to me. I assume you wouldn't wish to discourage one round a day tournaments if there is a market for them.

Agreed, though I don't think the opt-in scheme we are talking about would actually discourage anyone from running a game a day event.

Adam Raoof wrote: I think we would all agree that there are a lot of titled players out there who are simply not playing as much as they used to, or playing 4NCL and no weekenders

Not sure about that, nor whether we know, if true, why this is.

Adam Raoof wrote: ...maybe this would encourage them?

Perhaps, but one has to ask them. When I set up e2e4 I spoke to a number of titled players about why they don't play many weekenders and what I would need to do to get them to play. Armed with that I delivered what they needed and the proof is in the pudding. 5 GMs, 3 IMs and 3FMs at our last weekender.

Of course, one has to consider the counter position. There are a number of 'stars barred' weekenders where the organiser clearly believes that titled players put the amateur players off from entering. It's not a view I share, but presumably those that run such events believe it.

Sean Hewitt wrote:Of course, one has to consider the counter position. There are a number of 'stars barred' weekenders where the organiser clearly believes that titled players put the amateur players off from entering. It's not a view I share, but presumably those that run such events believe it.

My impression is that there are very few stars barred events.

I've argued previously that it's desirable to have some because they give players in the 180-200 grading range the opportunity to win a prize. To be fair, my suggestion that they had little chance of doing so in an Open was disputed.

However, it doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable to think that a stars barred event is more likely to attract players in that grading range. That would not of course be the case if there were a large number of such events - there's a considerable element of rarity value.

The e2e4 practice of giving an Over 2100 grading prize is also a help, of course.

Adam Raoof wrote: I think we would all agree that there are a lot of titled players out there who are simply not playing as much as they used to, or playing 4NCL and no weekenders

Not sure about that, nor whether we know, if true, why this is.

Adam Raoof wrote: ...maybe this would encourage them?

Perhaps, but one has to ask them. When I set up e2e4 I spoke to a number of titled players about why they don't play many weekenders and what I would need to do to get them to play. Armed with that I delivered what they needed and the proof is in the pudding. 5 GMs, 3 IMs and 3FMs at our last weekender.

The prize fund in the Grand Prix certainly encouraged many titled players to head off to all parts of the UK in search of grand prix points. Without that extra incentive they are faced with the situation that the prizes in opens are generally equal or lower than in the 80s when Hebden and Arkell amongst others spent the year trying to outscore each other over 12 months of weekend chess.

Sean Hewitt wrote: Of course, one has to consider the counter position. There are a number of 'stars barred' weekenders where the organiser clearly believes that titled players put the amateur players off from entering. It's not a view I share, but presumably those that run such events believe it.

I don't object to a small number of stars barred events, except of course for the county championship in Staffordshire